Not as white as they are painted

Robert Henderson

Those of us who do not share the liberal’s ostensible love of the multicultural mess they have made of modern Britain will be gratified to hear that the latest communal outbreak of the Joy of Diversity has brought the riotin’, lootin, whinin’ folk to their doorsteps.

The riots and lootfests currently occurring throughout London and other cities either “blessed” with large black populations or close to those which do have them – Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bristol and Liverpool – have spread from black ghettos such as Tottenham, Brixton and Hackney to richer areas such as Lambeth, Ealing, Notting Hill and Chalk Farm.

The last is of particular interest because Chalk Farm abuts the ancestral home of liberal bigots, Hampstead, and the rioters and looters got to the boundary of the Chalk Farm/Hampstead divide. How the collective population of Hampstead –which is preternaturally white for an inner London borough – must be sighing with dismay that they did not personally experience so vivid an outbreak of the “joy”, especially as they experience so little of it in normal times due to the terrible shortage of black and brown faces in their midst (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/how-the-well-to-do-liberals-choose-to-live-a-lesson-from-primrose-hill/).

White liberals in Notting Hill had cause to be especially excited. According to BBC Radio 5 (the 10.00 pm show 8 August) police warned a householder who rang them to report
looting to stay inside his home because there were allegedly rioters going about armed with machetes. Just think of how he must have shaken fit to burst with excitement as they thought of what blacks in Africa generally do with machetes.

Enough of the funnies. This is serious. Nothing equivalent has happened in Britain before. UK Race riots since the late 1950s have been restricted to the ghetto areas themselves and were much less widespread as a consequence. Nor was there anything like the scale of destruction of property or looting we are presently witnessing. The widespread use of arson this time is particularly striking. It would probably be necessary to go back to the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots of 1780 to find greater destruction of property in London. However, the Gordon Riots were genuinely concerned with a particular political issue rather than being primarily an excuse to loot and destroy.

Why has this happened now? Thirty years of pandering to blacks by the British elite in all its guises – politicians, mediafolk, big business, public servants and educationalists – has taken its toll. Blacks have been taught that two things by Britain’s liberals: nothing is their fault and everything they do wrong is down to ol’ whitey who just can’t stop oppressing them . On the white liberal side, they get their emotional rocks off by engaging in paroxysms of white guilt whilst cynically using ethnic minorities as a client class, of whom blacks are their unequivocal favourites. (The white working class used to be the clients of the liberal left, but that changed in the 1980s when the unions would not play ball with the Labour Party hierarchy and three successive defeats at the hands of Thatcher persuaded most Labour politicians that dumping the white working class was necessary if they were to get into power before they were on their Zimmer frames).

The response of white liberals

Initially, white liberals and blacks claimed that looters were protesting about the shooting dead of a black man Mark Duggan by police in Tottenham on Thursday 4 August 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516).This response was obvious nonsense – violent protest is one thing, looting quite another. Unable to write this off as a peaceful political protest gone wrong, Liberals and their black quangocracy clients (the blacks who are treated as “community leaders” , those who receive considerable amounts of public money to run “multicultural” projects or given highly paid publicly funded sinecures) are in a quandary. They know that these riots are being conducted overwhelmingly by blacks. They know that the general public understands this because of the voluminous media coverage. They realise that to deny the fact that this is a black event puts them in the position of “Comical Ali” during the Western attack on Iraq when he denied allied attacks were getting through as allied planes bombed the land close behind him. But they are only too well aware that to admit the truth (that this is a black problem) would undermine the politically correct virtual world they have created in which everyone in a position of power or influence in Britain has to give lip service at least to the idea that ethnic and racial diversity is a good in itself and infinitely preferable to homogeneous societies.

Faced with this profound difficulty liberals and their ethnic minority clients have taken one of two paths. The first mode of evasion is to portray the riots as having no racial context and to rely on the intimidatory effect of decades of multicultural propaganda together with liberal control of the media to allow them to call black white without attracting too much public ridicule. BBC reporters have been especially addicted to this nonsense by stressing at every opportunity that there are “people of all races” taking part in the riots. The more daring ones emphasise the fact that there are white rioters – it would be interesting to know the national origins of the few white rioters because eastern Europeans and gipsies in particular have a liking for theft and mayhem. Best of all the BBC (bless their liberal bigot hearts) have repeatedly described the rioters and looters as protestors. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8690267/London-riots-BBC-criticised-for-branding-thugs-as-protesters.html).

Getting on to BBC phone-ins to point out the black genesis of the riots has been next to impossible. On 7th August I did manage to take part fleetingly in a phone-in on the BBC Radio 5 Stephen Nolan programme (10.00 pm -1.00 am). After half an hour of listening to Nolan and his guests chatter happily about the riots without mentioning the racial aspect , I rang to mention that, try as I might to believe them, I could not help noticing that the vast majority of the rioters were black and consequently it was not a general social problem but a black social problem. I attributed the source of the problem to a near universal sense of victimhood amongst blacks. I bolstered this latter judgement with the fact that I, unlike white liberals who almost invariably arrange their lives to live in very white worlds, have lived for most of my adult life and live now in parts of London which have a large black population and consequently I engage daily with blacks, many of them, shock horror! poor and uneducated.

It took me another forty minutes to get on air, during which time the programme continued to parade a gallery of politically correct grotesques that included a Metropolitan Police officer who is a leading light in the black police association. When I eventually was allowed to broadcast my comments provoked outrage from this individual and I was immediately cut off, most frustratingly, before I could point out to him that he had unambiguously identified himself as a racist by joining a black-only representative group .

Later in the programme Nolan had as studio guests Edwina Currie (the one-time Tory Minister) and a retired suffragan bishop by the name of Stephen Lowe. Their job was to review the papers. Lowe castigated the Telegraph for having a long gallery of photographs showing blacks rioting and looting. He objected to this because – wait for it – the coverage made it look as though this was a black riot. Hilariously, this earned a stern rebuke from Currie who repeatedly accused Lowe of bringing race into the equation by mentioning the racially monochrome nature of the Telegraph photos. Not to worry, the Telegraph made up for this terrible blunder next day by publishing a series of photos released by the police of rioters. Guess the colour of the first rioter shown. Yes, that’s right, he is white. As was the person in the third photo. Sadly, the pretence of it being a racially neutral riot could not be sustained and the rest of the 14 photos were overwhelmingly black. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html). The Telegraph have continued to disgrace themselves in politically correct eyes by printing another series of black villains in their 9 August issue.

I suspect one of two things is happening: either the police have concentrated on arresting white rioters because they are (1) unlike the black culprits, often not part of a gang of rioters/looters and (2) arresting them does not cause any ethnic mayhem . Alternatively, the police/CPS are deliberately pushing white cases to the front of the queue to give the false impression that the rioters are not overwhelmingly black. The other thing which looks suspicious is the routine showing of black rioters in groups and whites in what look like cropped photos in which a single person is shown. These could be extracted from scenes showing one white rioter amongst a crowd of blacks.

If Harman and Riddle were correct all poor areas would be susceptible to this behaviour and most of the rioters would be white. This is not the case. The reality is that the criminality is, as anyone can see from the press and TV, overwhelmingly being perpetrated by blacks. Moreover, the first of the rioting arose in black ghettos. Most tellingly, no town or city which does not have a substantial black population or such a population close by has seen rioting. This also gives the lie to the claim from the Conservative side that the riots are down to the lax discipline in schools and the undermining of parental authority which has produced a generation of youngsters without respect for the law or any authority .

Clearly the causes of these riots lie in something other than poverty, a lack of school discipline or poor parenting. Ostensibly the behaviour is caused by 30 years of our elite pandering to the black population of Britain by telling them how oppressed they are and how racist Britain is. This has undoubtedly stoked their appetite for victimhood and given them a belief that they owe nothing to society in general. That gives them the moral release to riot and loot.

The black response to the killing of Mark Duggan demonstrates the difference between blacks and whites. The police in Britain kill very few people compared with virtually anywhere else, not least because they are not routinely armed. Most of those they kill are white. Violent protests or protests of any sort rarely if ever occur when the person killed is white because whites still trust the police (just) to behave reasonably . When a black man is killed it is assumed by blacks that it is tantamount to a murder and violent protest is more often than not the eventual outcome. It remains to be seen what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report concludes about the Duggan shooting, but if as has been reported by the media Duggan had a gun on him it is difficult to see how the police could be criticised for killing him if he either had it in his hand or it was near him and he was reaching for it when he was shot .

But there is a deeper problem. Blacks display the same general type of uncontrolled behaviour in societies of very different types throughout the world, whether it be where they are in the racial majority or minority, in an advanced industrial country or one from the depths of the Third World. There is genocide and mutilation in places such as Rwanda and Sierra Leone; rioting, looting and episodic murder in Britain. The degree of misbehaviour may vary but its general type is the same; a lack of self-control expressing itself in gratuitous violence.

That places the victimhood justification for misbehaviour in Britain in a different light. It is simply a rationalisation of general black social behaviour. Why do blacks tend to behave like this? Part at least of the answer is probably to be found in the inferior average IQ of blacks. In IQ and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations (2002), the British psychologist Richard Lynn and the Finish economist Tatu Vanhanan included their estimations of the average national IQs of 185 states . They reached the estimates either by using studies of IQs conducted by others or where these were not available, by extrapolating from neighbouring countries which did have IQ studies. For example, if the estimate based on studies of country X was 80, a neighbouring country Y which had no studies would also be taken as 89. In the case of all black African countries the estimated average IQ was 69. (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp).

Such a low average black IQ was unsurprisingly greeted by widespread disbelief and objections were raised about the validity of the studies used and the practice of extrapolating from other countries where no studies existed . In 2006 Lynn and Vanhanan published IQ and Global Inequality which addressed the objections and, while not removing them altogether, did show that the correlation between the imputed IQs and IQ studies of the states in question made after 2002 were strong (.91) (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%202008%20book%20review%20IQ%20and%20global%20inequality.pdf).

But even without the African studies and estimates, it is known that black IQs are inferior to those of whites or East Asians such as the Chinese. The average American black IQ is a well established 85, considerably higher than the 70 of black Africans but still way below the average white IQ of 100. Moreover, black Americans have a large admixture of white genes, so an average IQ between the black African and the white American average IQ is exactly what would be expected if it is granted that IQ is strongly dependent on genetic inheritance. It is reasonable to assume the blacks in the US without a white admixture would have an average IQ closer to the 70 estimated for black Africans.

What is the consequence of such a low average IQ? The first thing to understand is that people with low I Qs are not monsters but simply people who have a different level of mental competence. They have less capacity for abstract thinking, are more literal minded, live more in the present . In short, they are childlike. This makes them more susceptible to irrational and uncontrolled behaviour https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/blacks-the-odd-man-out/). This could be the root of the strong propensity for violence and a lack of social awareness seen amongst blacks. Other factors such as higher testosterone levels in blacks may also have some effect.

But there could also be another factor in play which is a corollary of the low IQ. Someone with a low IQ may find living in an advanced society extremely stressful because they cannot cope with the intellectual demands which the society exerts on them. It is interesting that some types of mental illness are linked to low IQ (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/a-low-iq-individual-in-a-high-iq-society/). This could be part of the reason at least for the fact that diagnosis of mental illness, especially schizophrenia, amongst blacks is high in Britain. It is claimed by some, especially educated blacks, that this is due to racism within the British mental health services. This is difficult to take this seriously in these pc times. If diagnosis of mental illeness was to be skewed by bias it would be more likely to result in fewer diagnoses of mental illness amongst blacks not more. Plausibly, blacks become disproprotionately mentally ill in Britain simply because they cannot cope. The paranoia engendered by the victimhood fostered by white liberals will not help their mental state either. (http://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=139).

The emasculation of the police

The most chilling thing about reports from the scene of the riots and looting has been the persistent claims of those at the scene but not part of the criminality that there is either an absence of any police or where there were any police, they were ineffective.

If the first riot in Tottenham had been quashed there is a good chance that the others might not have happened or have been much less serious. Quashing a single riot should have been within the power of the Met which has more than 30,000 officers, not immediately but within an hour or two after they had re-directed officers from other parts of London. Instead the police in Tottenham stood back and watched the looters for many hours.

Why have the police been so supine? It is primarily a consequence of the injection of political correctness into police officers’ minds with its most potent strand being “anti-racism”. A lesser secondary cause is the ever more stifling culture of “health and Safety” which the police have embraced . (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13319812
and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/42/contents). This has resulted in the police putting their own safety before that of the public, a straight reversal of what used to be the case. Effective policing system cannot operate on such a basis.

The British elite’s official pandering to ethnic minorities goes back to 1965 when the first Race Relations Act (RRA) was passed followed by a second stronger Act in 1968 which was one of the things which provoked Enoch Powell to make his “Rivers of Blood” speech in the same year. (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/enoch-powells-rivers-of-blood-speech/). A third RRA with considerably more teeth arrived in 1976 which elevated ethnic minorities to a de facto protected status, not only by strengthening the penalties for “inciting racial hatred” but by its provision of a wide range of privileges to ethnic minorities in the areas of work, education and social provision.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74)

Then came the Scarman report into the Brixton Riots of 1981. Lord Scarman did not accuse the Metropolitan Police of racism, but called for the development of community policing, the recruitment of more black officers and laid part of the blame for the riots on social deprivation, particularly the high rate of unemployment in Brixton. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm). This began the long march towards the police policing ethnic minority areas not on the basis of what crime was occurring in them, but what they could get “community leaders” – who tended to be self-appointed – to agree to and the ascribing of virtually any black behaviour to deprivation.

The next and longest nail in the coffin of rigorous policing of blacks (and ethnic minorities generally) came with the Macpherson report into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm). Macpherson accused the Metropolitan Police of being “institutionally racist”, that is racist not consciously but through the prevailing ethos (“canteen culture”) within the force, an accusation which was eventually embraced wholeheartedly by the Met followed by all the other UK police forces. Macpherson defined racism and institutional racism as:

‘RACISM

6.4 “Racism” in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which advantage or disadvantage people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form.

6.34 “Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’

Macpherson also provided an absurd and dangerous definition of what constituted racist behaviour which should be investigated:

DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT

12. That the definition should be:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

‘13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.

‘14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies.’

This meant that any complainant who was malicious or simply burdened with a sense of victimhood could turn an ordinary crime into one which was racist or even worse turn an incident which had no meaningful criminal content into a criminal act.

Macpherson continued:

‘REPORTING AND RECORDING OF RACIST INCIDENTS AND CRIMES

15. That Codes of Practice be established by the Home Office, in consultation with Police Services, local Government and relevant agencies, to create a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes.

16. That all possible steps should be taken by Police Services at local level in consultation with local Government and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes. This should include:

– the ability to report at locations other than police stations; and

– the ability to report 24 hours a day.

17. That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education Departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies….’

And

‘PROSECUTION OF RACIST CRIMES

‘34. That Police Services and the CPS should ensure that particular care is taken at all stages of prosecution to recognise and to include reference to any evidence of racist motivation. In particular it should be the duty of the CPS to ensure that such evidence is referred to both at trial and in the sentencing process (including Newton hearings). The CPS and Counsel to ensure that no “plea bargaining” should ever be allowed to
exclude such evidence. ‘ (Ibid)

To put the cherry on pc policing, in 2000 the Blair Government passed the Race Relations (Amendment) Act . This extended the obligations laid down in the 1976 Act for private bodies such as companies and charities to the police and other public authorities so that “ It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34).

Faced with that battery of multiculturalism supporting law and the ever more fervent support of the political elite for political correctness, unsurprisingly the British police became paranoid about being seen as “racist”. The “anti-discrimination ” credo has put any officer judged to have been racist – and this might be no more than a bit of banter suggesting that a black officer is difficult to see in the dark – at the risk of instant dismissal. It has also given a lever for non-white officers with the police to go on the grievance trail (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/217239_43_gmp_officers_in_police_racism_claims). The upshot is that police officers from newly minted constables to grandees such as chief constables and the Metropolitan police commissioner have become not only extremely of what they say, but reluctant to act forcefully against suspected black criminals. This reluctance is particularly marked in situations such as riots where they know they will be filmed by the mainstream media and private individuals.

In 1989 the Metropolitan Police changed its title from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service. Other police forces followed suit. The change of name is symbolic of the profound change in attitude. The British police moved from being keepers of the peace and catchers of criminals to quasi-social workers crossed with political commissars who are ever eager to enforce political correctness by investigating any alleged “hate crime” even though the idea of a hate crime only has a spectral existence in English law. No absurdity is beyond them as shopkeeper Gavin Alexander found in 2007 when the police swooped on his shop and took several golliwog dolls into custody (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-police-seize-golliwogs-in-racism-probe.do).

Needless to say, as political commissars the police are less than eager to investigate complaints which do not fit into the pc regime. In 2001 I made a complaint to the Racial and Violent Crime Squad against the BBC Director-General Greg Dyke who described his own organisation as “Hideously white”. This met all the necessary criteria for prosecution: Dyke was a public figure, he headed the largest media organisation in the world and his words indubitably incited hatred against whites. The police refused to register the complaint let alone investigate it even, though I persuaded an MP to write to the Met complaining about double standards (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/the-ever-increasing-madness-of-political-correctness/).

The future

The situation is potentially very serious. Imagine a situation where riots and looting such as these could be called up regularly without an adequate police response. It would be close to anarchy. This is what we risk. Potential rioters and looters have seen the police reduced to helplessness. They will think they can do it again whenever they choose.

This was flash mob rioting using social networking. Those on a network simply need to wait until they receive a message telling them where the next meeting point for a riot is and head for it. They get their loot and riot, then get another message telling them to move on elsewhere. The police can be run ragged. The same applies to any violent political protest rather than straightforward criminality. Any society can be reduced to chaos if enough people refuse to respect the law. That is the message which comes out of these riots.

What will happen now? Even if the police could identify them, the numbers are too great to bring to meaningful justice. Numbers are always difficult to assess where there is a fluid crowd, but the sheer volume of riots and the length of time they have lasted must mean there have been thousands of people committing criminal acts. Even if each incident only involved a couple of hundred people it would be easy to run up a figure of 10,000. Many of the crimes – arson, serious criminal damage, serious theft – would have to carry a heavy prison sentence if adequate punishment is to be administered. To process that number of people through a police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts would be a colossal task. Those who are old enough to remember the Poll Tax fiasco will recall how the magistrates courts became choked trying to process Poll Tax refuseniks. This would be much worse because the crimes would all go before a jury in the higher unless a guilty plea is entered. There would also be the strong likelihood of appeals, something which did not arise often in the case of a refusal to pay the Poll Tax. Even if these problems could be overcome, there would be no obvious place to incarcerate those convicted because our prisons are already so jam-packed everything is done to avoid imprisoning people and desperate remedies such as letting prisoners out early a frequent resort.

If people are not brought to justice or are brought to justice without any serious punishment resulting , the numbers of those who are willing to riot and loot will grow. This will drag in blacks who have not been willing to loot and riot before. It will also tempt other ethnic minorities to join in on the basis that if the blacks can get away with it why shouldn’t they have some of the spoils. A proportion of whites will also be tempted if they see ethnic minorities getting away with murder. That is the truly pernicious nature of what is happening: it continually encourages more disorder.

The point to cling onto is that without the mass immigration of blacks none of this would be happening. If some whites are engaging in the disorder it is only because the black rioters have provided the platform for them to behave in that way. We can safely say that because rioting to loot just has not happened in British society when there was no large black population here. Nor do we find such rioting happening in areas dominated by native white Britons.

The riots have all taken place in England. The reason is simple: the vast majority of post-1945 immigrants have settled in England not the rest of the UK. It is the English who have had to bear the brunt of mass immigration’s most obnoxious consequences.

What should be done? I suggest this. All attempts by government to appease ethnic minority groups should stop. No more money for community leaders, ethnic based charities or public projects which promote the interests only of minority ethnic groups. All the laws such as the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 which give de facto privileges to ethnic minorities and prevent honest objections to immigration and its consequences should be repealed. The police should be banned from playing the role of political commissars and get back to honest coppering; catching villains and maintaining order. Institutionalised political correctness should be stripped from public service and any organisation which receives public money. Most importantly, politicians and the mainstream media should stop incontinently promoting the liberal fantasy of multicultural heaven and recognise that it is not heaven but at best purgatory.

What will the Coalition Government do? Sadly, the odds must be on more appeasement of blacks in particular and probably ethnic minorities in general. Over the past 30 years vast sums of taxpayers’ money has been poured into appeasing blacks and Asians. A good example is the permitting of Housing Associations which, overtly or covertly, provide social housing for particular ethnic groups (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/). In addition to spending money, politicians and the mainstream media have given a grossly disproportionate amount of time and publicity to telling blacks and Asians how valuable they are to Britain. Like foreign Aid, the attempts to create a healthy society by pouring money into alienated and naturally separate communities are doomed. They simply take the money and attention and then ask for more of the same without becoming any more responsible either individually or to the wider society . They will undoubtedly be coming back for largesse and attention now and it is difficult to imagine a political class which has wholeheartedly signed up to the wonders of diversity refusing them another hand-out. Perhaps the moving of the Joy of Diversity into the districts inhabited by white liberals will change their public views but do not bet on it. They are well aware of the ill-effects of mass immigration which is the reason they take such care to live in very white worlds themselves. Provided they can arrange things to keep the immigrants from intruding into their own lives they will probably keep quiet and carry on peddling the same tired multicultural nonsense.

Those who still think that multiculturalism can work need to understand that not only is it more psychologically comfortable for minorities to remain separate, but that it can be advantageous if the host community is soft enough to pander to it.